Re: 2013Q3 freeze pre-announcement

Hi everyone,
On 11/09/2013 14:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes:
>
>> I think it is time again to prune some PostgreSQL versions. So I would
>> like to kill 8.4 and 9.0 now and change the default version to 9.2.
>
> No objections to changing the default to 9.2, but I think we should be
> asking the MAINTAINER of the postgresql packages.
Same here.
> Again, I think the issue for removing packages is what best serves the
> interests of users. Updating postgres across branches is a pain, and
> 8.4 and 9.0 are both still supported by postgresql.org. My usual
> question is whether we can say to someone who is running 8.4: "It's lame
> that you haven't updated yet, so you're out of luck." I'm not super
> plugged in to postgresql culture, but I don't think we're there yet. On
> the postgresql.org site, they say that 1) 8.4 is EOL in July of 2014 and
> 2) it's recommended to update to the latest point release of the branch
> you are running. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
I am still using PostgreSQL 8.4 on a few hosts, and as long as it is not
EOL I would like to keep it running on such a stable base. I tried to
migrate to 9.x already, but ran into issues with encodings and templates
in some cases, and I may not be the only one in such a position.
Plus, 8.4 is also in Debian, which helps interoperability.
> I don't see a lot of maintenance hassle in the older postgresql
> versions. Looking at postgresql84/Makefile.common, I see a 2-line
> update a few times a year that has that "update version and regen
> distinfo" look about it. I expect that changes to the 8.4 branch (and
> all branches older than 9.2, maybe even 9.2) will be bugfixes only. If
> the person doing the updates wants to do it, I don't think it's
> reasonable to object. If people on pkgsrc-releng@ want to speak up and
> object, I think we should listen, but I haven't heard that.
That's what I observed too.
Cheers,
--
khorben